It wasn’t a hostile discussion or anything, i didn’t even go full “the kulaks deserved it” (although the mod that single-handedly banned me did go full “the kulaks did not deserve it”). I just laid out plainly and calmly that revolutions are inherently authoritarian, that Luxemburg said “the revolution will be as violent as the ruling class makes it necessary” and that there’s one Trotzki quote i 100% agree with: “If the October Revolution hadn’t succeeded, the world would have known a Russian word for fascism 10 years before Mussolini’s March on Rome”. Basically the whole “Jakarta Method” train of thought laid out clearly and without calling anybody names.

Note that this was on an explicitly left-leaning server that does not allow cops and troops to join. Also after several days of another poster starting destructive, aggressive bad faith arguments in the politics channel until a number of users went “disengage” on her and the channel had to be frozen until recently, when she immediately started being hostile and arguing in bad faith again, which got her not one, but two warnings from the same mod without further consequences. Meanwhile, when i defend AES without attacking anybody, that’s apparently too much for her to handle. No advance warning, no “sis, you’re talking to me as a mod here”, not even a notification that i got banned.

The best part is that according to screenshots a friend just sent me, she’s now completely going off about “authoritarians”. The nerve some people have.

Sorry for posting pointless internet drama here, i just needed to vent.

  • ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think my newest take is that anti-authoritarianism is not left-leaning, it shares the aesthetics of the left but should be seen as a unique ideology in and of itself that ultimately serves the status quo. Efforts should be made to distinguish it as a unique ideology and define it firmly away from the left.

    In application anti-authoritarianism opposes all revolution and all construction of anything post-revolution. It opposes authority use within the existing state but it also opposes authority use to end the existing state and in doing so it upholds it and takes a position against any and all people that seek real change.

    You have described neo-liberalism; nothing must change, only managed decline.

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe that’s the correct way to frame anti-authoritarianism to actually get people to start recognising the need for some authority if you’re going to see change.

      We might honestly be slowly re-treading ground that the neoliberal thinktanks have already been over in their decision-making to support, back and push this ideology.

        • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          he premise of that FBI anarchist publication.

          Not sure if I’m familiar with this one. Do you have a link?

          anarcho-bidenism

          Never been a fan of this phrase. The people that take part in it like it too much and can hide behind multiple layers of irony while unironically supporting it.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I could have told you about Maoist feds upon request. I have zero doubt that the Austin Red Guard has those connections, Black Hammer was sponsored by a Russian agent, etc. etc. The US takes impotent enemies and pits them against its threatening enemies, especially the ones with more chaotic ideologies (as, it cannot be stressed enough, the original memo does still say). That does not mean there are not good anarchist and maoist movements or that either is a State Dept. plot, but that on a sociological level the nominally-anarchist/Maoist cultural trends in the US are easier to steer in the direction of useful idiocy against actual opponents of the US. Remember, Trotsky was the biggest useful idiot of all, not any anarchist or Maoist.

                • mimichuu_@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My point is, the actual declassified papers of the FBI show that this “anarchist infiltration zine” never happened. It was proposed and then discarded. Either they didn’t think we were enough of a threat to put the effort into subverting, or they thought they wouldn’t be able to make anarchists fall for it.

                  ML feds did happen though, and were rather succesful, because when the State Dept. plants reached a high enough position of authority within the party, no one dared questioning them.

                  That does not mean there are not good anarchist and maoist movements or that either is a State Dept. plot

                  You may not be saying it intentionally, and I believe you aren’t, but it’s a massive narrative in mainly ML circles that us anarchists were just useful idiots, and we’re against leftism as a whole, and we’re easy to infiltrate, and most of us are CIA/FBI plants etc etc, and the only source of this is that one zine, which didn’t actually happen. Continuing to post it and show it without further context just keeps reinforcing that narrative.

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’ll need to look more at the reporting.

                    What I said is that anarchist cultural trends in the US are vulnerable to useful idiocy, which is exclusively my point and which I am generally pretty clear about with discussing “anarcho-bidenists”. My instance is one with anarchists, including among admins, and they know that I’m not talking about them even though some of them are literally American anarchists, a matter made clear by the fact that they, unlike those I complain about, don’t fall for this “third campist” bullshit that you see some American anarchists go off about so frequently online.

                    Can you tell me with a straight face that anti-“tankie” hysteria isn’t useful idiocy or that those spaces aren’t frequently brimming with people who fashion themselves anarchists or ““libertarian socialists””?